They say they’re swearing off, but, are they really? Or just climavirtue signaling?
People are swearing off air travel because of climate anxiety
Staci Montori always considered herself to be eco-conscious. But four years ago she finally faced a grim reality: The two or three round-trip flights she was averaging per year had a massive carbon footprint.
“I have a lot of climate grief and anxiety,” Montori, of Lincoln, Mass., tells Yahoo Life, explaining that a carbon footprint calculator showed her flights to have a CO2 equivalent output — the way of measuring atmosphere-damaging greenhouse gases — of roughly 3.5 metric tons, which is equal to about a quarter of an average American’s entire carbon footprint (already much higher than the global average).
In response, the massage therapist and mother of three made a huge, proactive decision: She joined the growing number of people pledging to go flight-free.
“How could I not,” she asks, “when I read the grim statistics and see it happening now?”
Though the choice to completely give up plane travel might sound like something reserved for radical environmentalists and those with an extreme fear of flying, Montori’s choice to do so is actually in step with a growing movement: Flight Free USA, the stateside arm of a popular U.K. campaign that urges people to take a no-fly pledge.
Is there proof that all the people making these pledges stopped flying for real? Or even that most of them did that?
“Between the two, which is better depends on the distance traveled,” she writes, noting that for moderate-distance trips, such as those less than 600 miles, or a domestic flight within the U.K., “then flying has a higher carbon footprint than a medium-sized car.” If the distance is longer than 600 miles, then flying, she says, “would actually have a slightly lower carbon footprint [per mile] than driving alone over the same distance.”
But better than either, say experts, is choosing train travel.
Amtrak, the U.S. system of rail travel, produces 83% less emissions than driving and up to 73% less than flying, depending on which line is being traveled, according to a recent press release.
Well, prove that you’re doing this. Have at it. A lot easier in Europe that the U.S.
Is it just me, or does the photo look entirely staged and fake? It’s daytime in the desert, yet, that light is not coming in? Sure, it’s possible that it’s real. Probably not
[…] William Teach looks at the latest nonsense from the panic mongering Cult of Climate Change Catastrophe […]
What “grim statistics” is she talking about?
Hey, if she doesn’t want to fly, that’s her free choice!
During an idle moment I checked to see how long a trip to Salt Lake City from southern Montana would take. Normally, is is an eight hour drive. Flight time is one hour.
I would have to drive north four hours to the nearest railroad station, in Malta, where I could catch a west bound train. My next connection would be in Portland where I’d catch a south bound train to Sacramento. My connection in Sacramento would then take me east to SLC where I’d arrive approximately 56 hours after leaving home.
You will note that anyone taking us to catch the train would travel the distance to SLC on their trip to the station and back.
Yep, 19th century technology is the way to go.
I wouldn’t mind taking a cross country train ride for fun. If it was a little faster I’d be OK with taking the train from Raleigh to Trenton, could sleep and read rather than drive. But, almost same price to fly from Raleigh to Trenton, takes a whole lot less time